According to PFF, Colts have the worst backfield in the league

[colt18]

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-ranking-all-32-backfields-heading-into-the-2017-season

 

 

32.

The Colts continue to do nothing to help take a load off Andrew Luck’s ailing shoulders as they employ a backfield consisting of Frank Gore (62.8, 47th overall), Christine Michael (73.4, 30th) and Robert Turbin (72.0, T-38th). With a struggling offensive line, the Colts will most likely lead the NFL in pass attempts, and Gore finished 54-of-55 players in elusive rating at 15.7, as he forced just 23 missed tackles on 301 touches. Michael fared well in elusive rating last year as his 50.8 rating was 15th in the NFL and he forced 26 missed tackles on 137 touches. The Colts may need to look at the waiver wire on cutdown day.

 

 

Sheesh. Hope we can make a play for Guice next draft.

[TheOptimist88]

Sucks to read but it's sadly true. I think we'll load up after cuts tho. Pope isn't the answer and the Michael signing was proof we want more from our RB crew. They'll play a bigger role than normal with Luck coming off his injury

[Superman]

They IR'd Christine Michael two weeks after he signed. He's not part of the backfield. The #3 job is like going to Marlon Mack. And Turbin in an expanded role has a chance to be better and more productive than he was last year. Lots of reasons this "analysis" misses the mark.

[NorthernBlue]

No mention of Mack? Not saying he'll lead us to glory (at least not yet) but I feel like he's gonna get a fair opportunity to make some plays out of the back field. Gore is obviously on a pitch count and Turbin (although he'll be used more, is still mostly for goal line and short yardage situations. 

 

A lot of how the Colts will fare next season is dependent on the Offensive line. But because it's pretty much the same unit as last year that got Luck killed (even though they were young and evidently improved), people just assume they'll stink it up again, which is why everyone except Colts fans thinks they won't be good next season.

 

Which, side note is what I find so annoying about analysts and people who make predictions. Like, I get it that you don't exactly have time to follow every team in the league, but it's like 90 percent of analysts just assume that the only way a team can improve season to season, is if they made a ton of flashy free agency signings. If they didn't (like the Colts) then they'll transparently be just as sucky the next season.  That's why teams like Jacksonville get hyped up so much. 

 

/RantOver

[WoolMagnet]

Ballard should have the locker room re-wallpapered with all the stories like this that are out there.  LITERALLY, an article about every single position could be found.

[Albaby]

I would say that this analyst missed the mark.  He is talking about a RB that isn't going to be playing with us (at least not this season).  He totally overlooked our rookie RB Mack and he makes it sound like FG is all washed up.  Didn't FG run for over a 1000 yards last year?

[throwing BBZ]

The writer must not follow football, or he woke up still drunk and was about to miss a deadline.

Our backs are fine.

[Douzer]

Seems odd to use just one metric, 'elusive' rating, to make broad assessments of a backfield. Take a back like Turbin, he gets carries at the goal line and short yardage situations for the most part. He isn't trying be elusive, he's getting the tough yards in heavy formations. No metric for that? 

[Albaby]

16 minutes ago, Douzer said:

Seems odd to use just one metric, 'elusive' rating, to make broad assessments of a backfield. Take a back like Turbin, he gets carries at the goal line and short yardage situations for the most part. He isn't trying be elusive, he's getting the tough yards in heavy formations. No metric for that? 

They should track those yards and call them bulldozer yards.  Those kind of yards are important too.

[TheRustonRifle#7]

PFFTtttt...

[ColtJ82]

I personally expect to see more of Turbin in the early downs.We have a relatively competent run blocking o-line. There are worse backfields. 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

Well last season I felt the only team with a worse backfield than us were the Packers. Rookie rb's usually contribute quicker than any other position. So I think if Mack is as good as some of us feel/hope he is then our run production should improve.

I just hope Pagano will not be biased towards veterans and give Mack a good portion of carries if Mack's play warrants it.

[IinD]

Without reading the article, my backfield poo pooing  is this, we have no homerun or quick hitting back (Edge days) who can get you the occasional HR, but also get you 4 to 6/7 yards ANY down. 

 

You know most runs for us are going to be less then 5 regardless of who's running it.

 

Luck needs a legit young back who can take some heat off him. I hope that's what they see in Mack. 

 

I remember thinking TY was going to be a total bubble screen/quick slant type WR who wouldn't ever be a #1. Glad I was wrong, but my hope is they see something more then a complementary player in Mack.

 

Sorry for going sorta OT.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

They IR'd Christine Michael two weeks after he signed. He's not part of the backfield. The #3 job is like going to Marlon Mack. And Turbin in an expanded role has a chance to be better and more productive than he was last year. Lots of reasons this "analysis" misses the mark.

 

How is it that they fail to even mention Marlon Mack?

[lollygagger8]

 

Pff is a joke. If everyone would stop clicking on their articles, the problem would fix itself. 

[Jay Kirk]

44 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

Pff is a joke. If everyone would stop clicking on their articles, the problem would fix itself. 

Wise words Brother !

[DaColts85]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

They IR'd Christine Michael two weeks after he signed. He's not part of the backfield. The #3 job is like going to Marlon Mack. And Turbin in an expanded role has a chance to be better and more productive than he was last year. Lots of reasons this "analysis" misses the mark.

This has been just like multiple reports that these "experts" put together.  They all seem very quickly and poorly put together we almost no research.  We get no love from the national light, and I just want someone to be able to do their job a little better and make the content at least more current.  Random vent sorry!

[Jay Kirk]

Regardless of who says what it doesn't matter , it all comes out in the wash and is proven on the field. Guess what , lol speaking of wash I think they are all wet !

[Blueblood23]

I was excited about Ferguson last year, so I'll temper my enthusiasm for Mack at the moment. I hope he exceeds our expectations.

[Jay Kirk]

1 minute ago, Blueblood23 said:

I was excited about Ferguson last year, so I'll temper my enthusiasm for Mack at the moment. I hope he exceeds our expectations.

He has a lot more to offer than Ferguson , and much stronger

[Yoshinator]

The problem I have with PFF is that when it benefits the Colts on here, people will try to use it as part of their argument that a certain player is good (Andrew Luck for example), when it doesn't favor the Colts, people here will dismiss it, saying it stinks and all that. Our RBs aren't anything special or very good. Gore is on the decline and is no Home Run threat anymore. Turbin is average at best. Hopefully Marlon Mack is very good, but there's no data on him yet, which is why PFF doesn't mention him. None of these guys take the pressure off Luck for the most part, if they did, we wouldn't have the slow starts we do.

[life long]

11 minutes ago, Blueblood23 said:

I was excited about Ferguson last year, so I'll temper my enthusiasm for Mack at the moment. I hope he exceeds our expectations.

I agree on tempering enthusiasm for any rookie, but Mack was far more accomplished than Ferguson. We as fans do have legit reasons to have higher hopes for Mack.

[life long]

10 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

The writer must not follow football, or he woke up still drunk and was about to miss a deadline.

Our backs are fine.

That would be more true if our clear cut RB1 was not on the wrong side of 32. I categorize being "fine" at a position when we wont have to look for a young successor in the next offseason or two.

 

P.S. Barring injury Gore will be better statistically than last year. I predict more total yards from scrimmage, 1.3k rushing and around 400 in the air. We know he may not be around next year, why bother using a pitch count like previous seasons.

[Albaby]

6 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

How is it that they fail to even mention Marlon Mack?

I know, right?

[Myles]

I agree the article misses on many points.   But there is truth to it as well.   While they may not be the worst in the league, they are close to it.   I hope that can change with some offensive line support and some potential from Mack.  

[Lucky Colts Fan]

13 hours ago, colt18 said:

The Colts continue to do nothing to help take a load off Andrew Luck’s ailing shoulders as they employ a backfield consisting of Frank Gore (62.8, 47th overall), Christine Michael (73.4, 30th) and Robert Turbin (72.0, T-38th). With a struggling offensive line, the Colts will most likely lead the NFL in pass attempts, and Gore finished 54-of-55 players in elusive rating at 15.7, as he forced just 23 missed tackles on 301 touches. Michael fared well in elusive rating last year as his 50.8 rating was 15th in the NFL and he forced 26 missed tackles on 137 touches. The Colts may need to look at the waiver wire on cutdown day.

 

To the bolded, the only thing the OLine "struggles" with is having to block defenders for 10 seconds while Andrew is holding onto the ball waiting for a receiver to come open.  Ironically, PFF just had an article last month showing that the Colts OLine got their RBs farther from the LOS before a defender touched them than any other team in the league.  @Superman had a good writeup about it:

Frank Gore doesn't need to be elusive when he can make it 5+ yards before any contact.  It's not like Marshawn Lynch made a career of being elusive, Lynch and Gore just run through people.  Plus, if the writer had included Luck, the "evading defenders" rating of our backfield would probably skyrocket.

 

This guy wasn't even consistent.  He included Tyrod Taylor and Cam Newton in the Bills and Panthers backfield, but not Russell Wilson or Marcus Mariota or Andrew Luck for the Colts.  I'm not saying we have an elite backfield, or that we even belong in the top half of the league, but leaving out Mack and Luck and ranking us dead last?  Come on...

 

I think there might be more Colts-bias out there after Deflategate than I realized...

[Defjamz26]

Right now the Colts are one of only a few teams with an explosive, every down RB. Idk if it's the worse though. The Packers have a WR playing RB and an unproven rookie. The 49ers have Carlos Hyde and an unproven rookie. PFF is just playing off of the age old story about the Colts having no running game and no O-line.

 

We don't have an ideal situation but it's better than they're saying. However I wouldn't expect the issue to be rectified fully until 2018 at the earliest. Deep RB class then.

 

 

*

[LJpalmbeacher2]

Don't see the article being wrong about our woeful run game. Last season we ranked last in rushes 20 yards or more, we had a total of only 4...... and Luck had 3 of them!!!

[aaron11]

i wouldnt put us dead last, but i would not have us in the top 25 either

 

the rams were listed 26th, i would trade our RBs for theirs

 

they were really inconsistent when it came to QBs.  cam newton and tyrod talyor were mentioned as reasons for their teams being ranked high, but russel wilson and luck were not mentioned at all

[Superman]

5 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The problem I have with PFF is that when it benefits the Colts on here, people will try to use it as part of their argument that a certain player is good (Andrew Luck for example), when it doesn't favor the Colts, people here will dismiss it, saying it stinks and all that.

 

I am not dismissive of PFF. I also don't think they're gospel, especially their grades.

 

I read what they put out and consider each piece and each stat on its merits and value. This particular analysis is nonsense, for several reasons, and it's not hard to see why. 

[A8bil]

The analyses of the o-line are fools gold.  Last year, Gore got 3.9 ypc (good, not great), Turbin got 3.5 ypc, and Ferguson got 1.3 ypc.  That's not a line that is dominating their opponent.  It may be that the line is opening holes at the LOS (which Gore will skew with his ability to find and squirt through holes other RBs don't see), but if there is no second level blocking, the RB will be taken down for at most a 6-8 yard gain. That is particularly true for teams like the Colts running a power game between the tackles.   Avg a bunch of 6-8 yard carries with an equal number of 1-2 yard carries and you end up with numbers like Gore, Turbin and Ferguson.  To materially change those numbers, you need second level blocking, which the Colts simply don't do.   

I'll give you some examples...

 

 

Once Gore is out five yards, he's got 4 guys tackling him.  Or on this play, Gore gets hit 3 yard off the LOS by the first man, and is hit by 3 more unblocked guys dragging them an additional 3 yards.

 

 

By contrast, on one of Gore's longer runs, see how there is blocking at the LB level that allow Gore to cut off of, but even then, when Gore gets 15 yards downfield, he's facing three unblocked defenders in front of him, and 3 more closing on him from the sides and behind as he gathers to cut.

 

https://j.gifs.com/VmwB5v.gif

 

Let me submit that no RB in the league is going to pop big runs with the downfield blocking of the Colts.  Maybe a guy like a McCoy pops it to the outside at the second level, and gets a few more yards than Gore gets but the number of RBs who can make more of this play in the league can be counted on one hand of a three fingered man. 

 

By contrast, look at the number of Patriot blockers here at the point of attack springing Blount for a touchdown.

 

 

 

 

Two things need to happen for the running game to improve.  They need to scheme where Gore/Turbin/Mack are not running between the tackles into a slew of unblocked defenders.  And, the TE, WRs, and o-line, all have to get dedicated to downfield blocking.

 

 

 

 

[Myles]

1 hour ago, A8bil said:

The analyses of the o-line are fools gold.  Last year, Gore got 3.9 ypc (good, not great), Turbin got 3.5 ypc, and Ferguson got 1.3 ypc.  That's not a line that is dominating their opponent.  It may be that the line is opening holes at the LOS (which Gore will skew with his ability to find and squirt through holes other RBs don't see), but if there is no second level blocking, the RB will be taken down for at most a 6-8 yard gain. That is particularly true for teams like the Colts running a power game between the tackles.   Avg a bunch of 6-8 yard carries with an equal number of 1-2 yard carries and you end up with numbers like Gore, Turbin and Ferguson.  To materially change those numbers, you need second level blocking, which the Colts simply don't do.   

I'll give you some examples...

 

 

Once Gore is out five yards, he's got 4 guys tackling him.  Or on this play, Gore gets hit 3 yard off the LOS by the first man, and is hit by 3 more unblocked guys dragging them an additional 3 yards.

 

 

By contrast, on one of Gore's longer runs, see how there is blocking at the LB level that allow Gore to cut off of, but even then, when Gore gets 15 yards downfield, he's facing three unblocked defenders in front of him, and 3 more closing on him from the sides and behind as he gathers to cut.

 

https://j.gifs.com/VmwB5v.gif

 

Let me submit that no RB in the league is going to pop big runs with the downfield blocking of the Colts.  Maybe a guy like a McCoy pops it to the outside at the second level, and gets a few more yards than Gore gets but the number of RBs who can make more of this play in the league can be counted on one hand of a three fingered man. 

 

By contrast, look at the number of Patriot blockers here at the point of attack springing Blount for a touchdown.

 

 

 

 

Two things need to happen for the running game to improve.  They need to scheme where Gore/Turbin/Mack are not running between the tackles into a slew of unblocked defenders.  And, the TE, WRs, and o-line, all have to get dedicated to downfield blocking.

 

 

 

 

So you are saying Pagano needs to go?

I agree.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, A8bil said:

The analyses of the o-line are fools gold.  Last year, Gore got 3.9 ypc (good, not great), Turbin got 3.5 ypc, and Ferguson got 1.3 ypc.  That's not a line that is dominating their opponent.  It may be that the line is opening holes at the LOS (which Gore will skew with his ability to find and squirt through holes other RBs don't see), but if there is no second level blocking, the RB will be taken down for at most a 6-8 yard gain. That is particularly true for teams like the Colts running a power game between the tackles.   Avg a bunch of 6-8 yard carries with an equal number of 1-2 yard carries and you end up with numbers like Gore, Turbin and Ferguson.  To materially change those numbers, you need second level blocking, which the Colts simply don't do.   

I'll give you some examples...

 

Once Gore is out five yards, he's got 4 guys tackling him.  Or on this play, Gore gets hit 3 yard off the LOS by the first man, and is hit by 3 more unblocked guys dragging them an additional 3 yards.

 



 

By contrast, on one of Gore's longer runs, see how there is blocking at the LB level that allow Gore to cut off of, but even then, when Gore gets 15 yards downfield, he's facing three unblocked defenders in front of him, and 3 more closing on him from the sides and behind as he gathers to cut.

 

https://j.gifs.com/VmwB5v.gif

 

Let me submit that no RB in the league is going to pop big runs with the downfield blocking of the Colts.  Maybe a guy like a McCoy pops it to the outside at the second level, and gets a few more yards than Gore gets but the number of RBs who can make more of this play in the league can be counted on one hand of a three fingered man. 

 

By contrast, look at the number of Patriot blockers here at the point of attack springing Blount for a touchdown.

 



 

 

 

Two things need to happen for the running game to improve.  They need to scheme where Gore/Turbin/Mack are not running between the tackles into a slew of unblocked defenders.  And, the TE, WRs, and o-line, all have to get dedicated to downfield blocking.

 

 

Good thoughts, and while the blocking can improve, especially downfield, I think you're missing two key points.

 

First, the Colts actually did a pretty good job of getting the backs past the line of scrimmage prior to contact last year. Second, PFF says Gore didn't break very many tackles, which is a knock against his elusiveness. So whether the team can do a better job of keeping the backs clean or not, the argument is that our backs in general didn't do a good job of making defenders miss, and that's borne out on the tape, including the gifs you showed.

 

The third play shows Gore going untouched 15 yards, and being unable to make the DB miss in the open field. Great carry, good blocking, but you can't count on blocking 15 yard down the field -- in fact, the WR block on the playside is the reason he got so far untouched. If he makes the DB miss, it's a bigger gain, and a big part of that is just having another gear in the open field, which Gore doesn't have anymore. I don't think Turbin has it, but Mack does. 

 

Also, on the long Blount TD, he breaks a tackle in the backfield, then accelerates through the second level. Blount isn't a breakaway runner either, but he showed some speed on that carry. The downfield blocking was excellent, but he got past those blocks fast enough to go untouched the rest of the way. 

[A8bil]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Good thoughts, and while the blocking can improve, especially downfield, I think you're missing two key points.

 

First, the Colts actually did a pretty good job of getting the backs past the line of scrimmage prior to contact last year. Second, PFF says Gore didn't break very many tackles, which is a knock against his elusiveness. So whether the team can do a better job of keeping the backs clean or not, the argument is that our backs in general didn't do a good job of making defenders miss, and that's borne out on the tape, including the gifs you showed.

 

The third play shows Gore going untouched 15 yards, and being unable to make the DB miss in the open field. Great carry, good blocking, but you can't count on blocking 15 yard down the field -- in fact, the WR block on the playside is the reason he got so far untouched. If he makes the DB miss, it's a bigger gain, and a big part of that is just having another gear in the open field, which Gore doesn't have anymore. I don't think Turbin has it, but Mack does. 

 

Also, on the long Blount TD, he breaks a tackle in the backfield, then accelerates through the second level. Blount isn't a breakaway runner either, but he showed some speed on that carry. The downfield blocking was excellent, but he got past those blocks fast enough to go untouched the rest of the way. 

Actually, what I was trying to accomplish was to show that a line's ability to get a RB past the LOS doesn't mean you have a good run blocking line.  If, as the clips I posted show, the RB is running into to 3-4 tacklers after getting past the LOS, you just aren't going to have that many long runs.  NFL tacklers are simply too good when they are unblocked.  Linemen need to release and get to the second level.  

 

A RB's "elusiveness" rating is directly impacted by downfield blocking, or in the Colts case, the lack of downfield blocking.  On the third clip, the Colts make NO downfield blocks more than 4 yards off the LOS.  The reason Gore gets 15 yards is scheme--the play drew the secondary downfield, which gave Gore some running room, but to criticize Gore for not making the safety totally whiff there AND continue to outrun the defense is unrealistic.  Gore got past the safety with minimal contact, but to gather to make a cut gave the rest of the defenders that moment to close in on Gore because they were unblocked.  Had the offensive players stuck with the play, and Gore has only the safety to beat, he may go for a TD, but with 4-5 other unblocked defenders closing on him, he has no chance.

 

I respectfully disagree that you cannot count on downfield blocking 15 yards off the LOS.  On Blount's play, there were three blockers who engaged at the point of attack 8-10 yards off the LOS.  If the defenders had been 12-15 yards off the LOS, that's where they would have engaged.  The point is, the play scheme had the players shooting out to make those downfield blocks,and the blockers are giving max effort to engage on their blocks.  

 

One thing I agree on is that you cannot "count" on that type of blocking every play, but all it takes over the course of a game is for the blocking to work 2-3 times and your RBs will regularly be getting 100 yard+ games, you'll end up with 10+ 20 yard gains on the season, rather than one, and your RB YPC will go up to mid 4s.  Watch the downfield blocking on teams with good running games and you'll invariably see great downfield blocking or at least effort.

 

This may not be the best example, but look at this McCoy video....

 

Very much like Gore's run in the third video, where both have a safety they have to juke...but McCoy's goes for 30+ more yards.  Note, McCoy doesn't have to even make a move until 11 yards downfield, and even then, the safety has to deal with the RT blocking 53 in his path making it uncertain which way McCoy will cut.  From there, every other defender is being harassed by a blocker the entire way down the field.  Gore enjoyed none of that.  He just had unblocked guys close in on him.  I think if you look a lot of highlight reels, you'll see most (not all) look like McCoy's run with the RB having downfield help to keep tacklers at bay.  The Colts don't do that.

[throwing BBZ]

32 minutes ago, A8bil said:

Actually, what I was trying to accomplish was to show that a line's ability to get a RB past the LOS doesn't mean you have a good run blocking line.  If, as the clips I posted show, the RB is running into to 3-4 tacklers after getting past the LOS, you just aren't going to have that many long runs.  NFL tacklers are simply too good when they are unblocked.  Linemen need to release and get to the second level.  

 

A RB's "elusiveness" rating is directly impacted by downfield blocking, or in the Colts case, the lack of downfield blocking.  On the third clip, the Colts make NO downfield blocks more than 4 yards off the LOS.  The reason Gore gets 15 yards is scheme--the play drew the secondary downfield, which gave Gore some running room, but to criticize Gore for not making the safety totally whiff there AND continue to outrun the defense is unrealistic.  Gore got past the safety with minimal contact, but to gather to make a cut gave the rest of the defenders that moment to close in on Gore because they were unblocked.  Had the offensive players stuck with the play, and Gore has only the safety to beat, he may go for a TD, but with 4-5 other unblocked defenders closing on him, he has no chance.

 

I respectfully disagree that you cannot count on downfield blocking 15 yards off the LOS.  On Blount's play, there were three blockers who engaged at the point of attack 8-10 yards off the LOS.  If the defenders had been 12-15 yards off the LOS, that's where they would have engaged.  The point is, the play scheme had the players shooting out to make those downfield blocks,and the blockers are giving max effort to engage on their blocks.  

 

One thing I agree on is that you cannot "count" on that type of blocking every play, but all it takes over the course of a game is for the blocking to work 2-3 times and your RBs will regularly be getting 100 yard+ games, you'll end up with 10+ 20 yard gains on the season, rather than one, and your RB YPC will go up to mid 4s.  Watch the downfield blocking on teams with good running games and you'll invariably see great downfield blocking or at least effort.

 

This may not be the best example, but look at this McCoy video....

 

Very much like Gore's run in the third video, where both have a safety they have to juke...but McCoy's goes for 30+ more yards because every other defender is being harassed by a blocker the entire way down the field.  Gore enjoyed none of that.  He just had unblocked guys close in on him.  I think if you look a lot of highlight reels, you'll see most (not all) look like McCoy's run with the RB having downfield help to keep tacklers at bay.  The Colts don't do that.

 

 Thanks for this.
 We had the slowest guard combo going with Mewhort and Good on the field together. JMO
How many big blocks downfield in the run game from our receivers? From TY? chuckle
 Mewhort is reported as 6lbs lighter. woohoo. And Haeg is much faster than Good. lol
 At WR Kamar Aiken is 6'2" and 216. He should get some good blocks in. lol

 We need Great improvement blocking downfield that is for sure.
 

[A8bil]

26 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Thanks for this.
 We had the slowest guard combo going with Mewhort and Good on the field together. JMO
How many big blocks downfield in the run game from our receivers? From TY? chuckle
 Mewhort is reported as 6lbs lighter. woohoo. And Haeg is much faster than Good. lol
 At WR Kamar Aiken is 6'2" and 216. He should get some good blocks in. lol

 We need Great improvement blocking downfield that is for sure.
 

There are some WRs and linemen who will be better at downfield blocking, but IMO 90% of downfield blocking is effort.  The RBs just need someone harassing the defender so that they can make cuts off of the block.  It's really hard for a DB to go through a WR to tackle a RB.

[Superman]

57 minutes ago, A8bil said:

A RB's "elusiveness" rating is directly impacted by downfield blocking, or in the Colts case, the lack of downfield blocking.  On the third clip, the Colts make NO downfield blocks more than 4 yards off the LOS.  The reason Gore gets 15 yards is scheme--the play drew the secondary downfield, which gave Gore some running room, but to criticize Gore for not making the safety totally whiff there AND continue to outrun the defense is unrealistic.

 

I disagree. I'm not criticizing Gore for not making the DB miss, but that's what directly impacts his elusiveness rating. He's not a 'make you miss' RB at this stage of his career, and he isn't going to run past many DBs in the open field. To his credit, his high level vision and balance helps him find and get through holes and turn 2 yard plays into 10 yard plays. 

 

You showed an example of McCoy breaking a big run, but it's an entirely different play call against an entirely different defensive look. Like you said, on the Gore play earlier, the play call backed the secondary up, so of course there's going to be a DB 15 yards downfield. More speed and wiggle makes that a more interesting play, one on one. So if a guy like Mack has more speed on a play like that, and if he has the vision and patience to get to the second level, then maybe he'll be able to put more pressure on the defense, even without downfield blockers.

 

It's also worth mentioning that, without a real breakaway threat, there's no reason to scheme for downfield blocking. Gore isn't bending the corner on the defense, much less running away from DBs. We ran only a moderate amount of run plays outside the tackle, and part of that is because we didn't have reliable backs who could bend the corner. I'm hoping they work Mack in for some outside runs, which might threaten defenses in a different way.

[A8bil]

39 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree. I'm not criticizing Gore for not making the DB miss, but that's what directly impacts his elusiveness rating. He's not a 'make you miss' RB at this stage of his career, and he isn't going to run past many DBs in the open field. To his credit, his high level vision and balance helps him find and get through holes and turn 2 yard plays into 10 yard plays. 

 

You showed an example of McCoy breaking a big run, but it's an entirely different play call against an entirely different defensive look. Like you said, on the Gore play earlier, the play call backed the secondary up, so of course there's going to be a DB 15 yards downfield. More speed and wiggle makes that a more interesting play, one on one. So if a guy like Mack has more speed on a play like that, and if he has the vision and patience to get to the second level, then maybe he'll be able to put more pressure on the defense, even without downfield blockers.

 

It's also worth mentioning that, without a real breakaway threat, there's no reason to scheme for downfield blocking. Gore isn't bending the corner on the defense, much less running away from DBs. We ran only a moderate amount of run plays outside the tackle, and part of that is because we didn't have reliable backs who could bend the corner. I'm hoping they work Mack in for some outside runs, which might threaten defenses in a different way.

Well...I cannot agree.  

 

You seem to think that only having a breakaway RB justifies downfield blocking, whereas I believe, and I think it is correct, that downfield blocking creates breakaway runs.  Just look at the top RBs last year in 40+ yard runs.  Ajayi was #1 with 4.  Then Blount, Crowell, Elliott, Gordon, Hill and McCoy followed with 3.  4 of 7 RBs with the biggest breakaway runs are 4.55 or slower backs, and Hill is a 4.66!  They're no faster than the LBs on the field (and not measurably faster than Gore), yet they have just as many breakaway runs as Elliott and McCoy, who themselves are only 4.45 guys. Clearly, speed is not the core reason for big runs.  It's blocking (and scheme).

 

I'm not sure your basis for saying downfield blocking does not factor into "elusiveness."  Just in the clip I posted, you can see that McCoy doesn't get touched until 40+ yards down field, but the safety would have made a play on McCoy had #78 not been blocking #53 downfield right in his path.  That block kept McCoy obscured from the safety, which kept the safety back waiting to see which way McCoy cut.  By the time he could see him and turn to make the play, McCoy was able to run past him. That one run contributed hugely to McCoy's elusiveness rating, and it had everything to do with #78's downfield block, and the extension of the play by the WRs who prevented the DBs and LBs from closing in on McCoy.

 

Same with Blount's run in the earlier clip I posted.  Blount was not touched, but had he not had the benefit of 3 blockers, he would have gone down with an 8 yard run.  Instead it goes for 40+ and a TD and he looks like one of the most "elusive" backs in the league. These "elusiveness" stats are highly misleading. 

[BR-549]

6 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher said:

Don't see the article being wrong about our woeful run game. Last season we ranked last in rushes 20 yards or more, we had a total of only 4...... and Luck had 3 of them!!!

Our run game sucks..... we all know it, it doesn't have to be put into an article from Pro Football Fudge-heads....

 

Until our line gels (supposedly), or we get new talent, that is what we have.  It doesn't matter if Walter Payton is resurrected it isn't going to be any better.  Marlon Mack might have been a little above the talent level he played against in college so there isn't any reason to get excited about him until he shows us he is special in his own right by being good against pros.  Doubt he can do that with our line.

 

And like has been mentioned here in previous posts... we need better blocking downfield.  Hardly ever see it (at least during the last few years) and it is depressing.  I am not sure what is so damn hard about that... keep blocking until the whistle and if you get a shoulder on a defender move on down field and take someone else out of the play.  It  is not brain surgery... sorry for the run-in-the-ground comparison, but Christ.  These guys we have as linemen are supposed to be pros... block somebody and make a difference.  Do something better than you did the last play.

 

So we had a 1000 yard rusher last year that got most of the yards by being gritty and horizontal to the turf while he blasted into the linebacker 1 yard past the LOS.  Ridiculous. 

 

So freaking tired of our less than acceptable run offense that worried absolutely zero defensive coordinators.  

 

There isn't anything to even argue about here. 

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, A8bil said:

Well...I cannot agree.  

 

You seem to think that only having a breakaway RB justifies downfield blocking, whereas I believe, and I think it is correct, that downfield blocking creates breakaway runs.  Just look at the top RBs last year in 40+ yard runs.  Ajayi was #1 with 4.  Then Blount, Crowell, Elliott, Gordon, Hill and McCoy followed with 3.  4 of 7 RBs with the biggest breakaway runs are 4.55 or slower backs, and Hill is a 4.66!  They're no faster than the LBs on the field (and not measurably faster than Gore), yet they have just as many breakaway runs as Elliott and McCoy, who themselves are only 4.45 guys. Clearly, speed is not the core reason for big runs.  It's blocking (and scheme).

 

How relevant is Frank Gore's 40 times from 2005?

 

I'm not saying we should never block down field. I'm saying that faster and more elusive backs are better able to make defenders miss, and they're better able to run away from defenders in the second level. 

 

This play isn't about downfield blocking. It's about Gore's ability to make a defender miss in the second level, and then having the speed to outrun everyone to the end zone. 

 

On this play, he got downfield blocking, but it only mattered after he broke three tackles. 

 

 

He'll still break a few tackles a game, but he's not making defenders miss, and he doesn't have that top gear to run away from defenders. He's still an effective back, but he doesn't threaten defenses with speed. You're arguing that elusiveness and speed won't matter, and I don't get that. 

 

Also, we've only really discussed long runs, but speed and elusiveness will matter on shorter runs as well, especially outside the tackles.